Gary Johnson, former two-term governor of New Mexico, has launched his presidential campaign, the first to so declare – although, to this observer, at least, it seems like he’s been running forever. He’s been traveling around the country for months, doing interviews, and he recently popped up in New Hampshire, where he made the announcement.

Johnson claims to be a libertarian, but his libertarianism, like his candidacy, is problematic: he is best known, perhaps, for his stance on the legalization of marijuana – and his detailing of his personal experience with the weed. "I didinhale," he has said. He’s pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and wants to cut 43 percent of the federal budget right off the top. So, what’s the problem?

"Johnson is open, in principle, to waging humanitarian wars. ‘If there’s a clear genocide somewhere, don’t we really want to positively impact that kind of a situation?’ he says. ‘Isn’t that what we’re all about? Isn’t that what we’ve always been about? But just this notion of nation building—I think the current policy is making us more enemies than more friends.’"

At a time when the Obama administration has, in effect, announced a new foreign policy doctrine which avers that we have a "responsibility to protect" the victims of alleged "genocide" all over the world, Johnson’s devotion to the libertarian principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other nations is really questionable. Especially now that the Libyan adventure is well underway, and we find ourselves sliding down that slippery slope into full-scale support for the Libyan rebels, Johnson’s position is rather too close to the Obama Doctrine.

And it has to be asked: is saving the world, or even a small portion of it, really "what we’re all about"? Maybe over at the Weekly Standard, where Johnson gave this interview, it is, but not in the libertarian precincts where he hopes to garner support.

Yes, Johnson is against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: and yes, he wants to bring the troops home from Europe and other places where they have no business being, but he is clearly tailoring his campaign to suit the softcore sensibilities of the Beltway crowd. For example, he’s supposedly against foreign aid – except, perhaps, when it comes to Israel. It’s not clear if, like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), he would end that particular boondoggle, but in this interview he was clear that maintaining our military alliance with Israel is "key" – although key to what, he did not say.

Furthermore, he went on to say that our military alliances is general are also "key" in fighting the "war on terrorism" that he believes we must continue to wage, albeit not in Afghanistan and Iraq. The vagueness of all this is disconcerting, especially when one senses the echo of Obama-ism in this "libertarian" version of multilateralism.

The problem with Johnson’s benign view of military alliances is that they are a tripwire for US intervention: after all, what does a military alliance mean if not joint defense – or offense – against a common enemy? Johnson emphasizes our alliance with Israel, and yet what does this alliance mean other than a guarantee that the US will come to Israel’s assistance in case of war — and that is not to say who will start the war.

Asked what he would do if Iran acquired nuclear weapons, Johnson blithely replied that surely Israel wouldn’t just stand idly by and let that happen. So Johnson’s position is that the IDF will take care of the problem. That he followed this up with the observation that the Israelis are known to possess nuclear weapons I find macabre. Would he approve if the Israelis nuked Tehran? As President, sitting there in the Oval Office – his feet up on the desk, toking on the presidential pipe — what would he say when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu informs him of the imminent strike? Imagine the conversation:

"Mr. President, the day of reckoning has come."

"Well, look, Bibi, you’re sure about this now?"

"We face an existential threat: we have no choice."

"Okay, but let’s be clear: we’re not helping, and I’ll say we had nothing to do with it."

"That’s fine, Mr. President: we’ve had all the help from you that we need."

It is absurd to believe that the US would not be invariably drawn into a war against Iran initiated by Israel: this is the reason Johnson’s "key" alliance is so dangerous. With militaristic right-wing governments in charge in Tel Aviv, the prospect of the Israelis dragging us into a regional conflagration is increasingly likely. In the same interview, Johnson disdains the idea of defending Taiwan against the People’s Republic of China on the grounds that it would cause a world war – and yet our alliance with Israel is judged by a different standard. Why is that? It’s positively baffling.

Multilateralism, whether carried out by the Obama administration or the Johnson administration, is just the division of labor amongst the imperialist (Western) powers. Johnson wants to represent the decline-ist elite who simply think it’s high time other – Western — nations shared the burden of empire. But we already have an administration which is doing precisely that, or trying to, in Libya, and also in Afghanistan, where NATO is supposed to be taking the lead.

Indeed, it is fair to ask Johnson: with Ron Paul widely expected to enter the race, why is he even running? He gets asked this question all the time, and will be asked even more often now that he’s made his official announcement, and it’s time he answered it. Ron Paul’s name is synonymous with libertarianism in the GOP, and in general: why try compete with this powerful brand name, unless there’s something unique Johnson has to offer?

The Johnson campaign, in my view, is an indirect tribute to Ron Paul’s monumental achievement. It was Paul, after all, who brought libertarianism into the public consciousness. That a cheap knock-off has now appeared on the market underscores the real value Paul has created for the libertarian movement – and I doubt many will fall for the counterfeit. Not if, as he says in the above-referenced interview, that he thinks we ought to "save" Social Security by "increasing the amount of withholding." Is the world ready for a "libertarian" in favor of hiking taxes? Only in Bizarro World.

The last time Paul ran, he got no support from these circles: indeed, they bad-mouthed him to the Nation, and to anyone who would listen, perpetuating (if not originating) a smear campaign in Koch-funded media and via the Washington gossip mill. Brink Lindsey, the founder of "liberaltarianism," and others formerly and currently associated with the Cato Institute, were the transmission belt for a whole series of slanders that didn’t tarnish Paul but merely boomeranged on the perpetrators, discrediting them in the eyes of most serious libertarians.

This crowd has always underestimated Ron Paul. They thought the newsletter non-scandal would destroy him: instead, he brushed them off as a giant would brush away a gnat, and went on to create a grassroots movement that is growing by the day. Contra Cato’s David Boaz, who thinks Rudy "Single Delegate" Giuliani made Paul a national figure, it was the ideas in themselves, filtering out through the grassroots nascent Tea Party movement, that catapulted Ron into the limelight – an odd thing for the Vice President of a think tank to miss, don’t you think? Boaz avers:

"’Did Ron Paul get any coverage before Rudy attacked him?’ asks David Boaz, the vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute. ‘Before that, Ron was a member of Congress running to get on national television and talk about his issues. It was Rudy attacking him that made him an Internet and cable star.’"

This is the old Kochtopus fascination with media coverage as somehow being able to create a movement – as opposed to a movement meriting (nay, demanding) coverage on account of its indisputable newsworthiness. Some things never change. The Kochtopus types have always believed this, which is why their many organizations and front groups never really succeeded in creating anything but a strictly astroturf "movement," as some of their critics on the left, such as Rachel Maddow, have noted.

Boaz and his crew have it exactly backwards: first you create a movement big enough and active enough to actually do something, and then the media (which is biased against you anyway) is forced to sit up and take notice. This is the road Ron Paul has traveled, and it has been a long one: but his persistence – and devotion to principle – has paid off. It was Paul who warned the public about the inevitable economic catastrophe awaiting us if we continued our money-printing, war-mongering, spendthrift ways – and they remembered when the crash came. He has enormous credibility because of this. The Beltway libertarians envy him for that, because credibility is what they crave above all. What they have never understood, however, is that it can’t be conferred by favorable press coverage, or created by expensive public relations campaigns. It has to be earned – and Paul has certainly earned it.

The Kochtopus, for all its many criticisms of the Paul movement, was at a strategic disadvantage: they could diss Paul all they wanted, but what was the alternative? They had none. Now they do: Gary Johnson, "the next Ron Paul," or, rather, Paul Lite, Paul without the hard edges, without the "kooky" end-the-Fed stuff, without the social conservatism, without the stubborn devotion to principle and to Austrian economics, specifically – in short, a hollowed out libertarianism, without any style and surely without its soul.

So far, Johnson has raised and spent a minuscule fraction of Paul’s war chest, and he won’t last through New Hampshire – unless he can get the Kochs behind him. I can’t help believing that’s what he’s counting on.

Justin: This a great essay. I think Johnson is being put up to split the lbertarian vote and Trump is being put up to split the conservative vote in the Republican primaries. The countryclubers and neocons hate these 2 branchs of the party. The problem for them is they are 80% of the party. They did the same thing to Pat Buchanan in 1996, byputting up Alan Keyes and Bob Dornan, two neocon shills. The votes they got cost pat several critical primaries. It is a sad day for America when the only sane candidate running is a 75 year old congressman.

I wouldn't be so dismissive of Governor Johnson, his attitudes or motivations. He may not be as specific in his policy pronouncements as Dr. Paul, but his more "moderate" approach, like that of Rand Paul, may be a reasonable calculation to enhance his electability. Remember, when Ron Paul launched his prior presidential campaigns, his object was not to be elected President, but to use the publicity and enthusiasm coming to a presidential campaign to educate the public about the importance of the Constitution to set the limits of the power of Congress and the President, of the need for sound money, freed from political manipulation, and of a foreign policy that eschews entangling military alliances with foreign states. He knew that what he had to say would be met with skepticism, if not derision, by a majority of the electorate, not to mention even fellow Republicans. Credit is due to him for getting America to take his arguments seriously. But it has always been the case that Presidential campaigns, those designed to achieve electoral success, avoid lecturing the public or getting out ahead of public opinion. Gary Johnson's platform, while not as ambitious as Ron Paul's, is clearly a more radical departure from most misguided Republican orthodoxies than that of any candidate not named Paul, and, if it succeeds, would be victory any liberty loving American should not be shy about celebrating. This is one of very few Republican politicians who actually endorsed Ron Paul for President in 2008, which is not something that can be said of any "neo-cons" or "quasi-libs" associated with the Koch machine. If he is not the one ultimately to lead the liberty movement out of the wilderness and into the White House, he is not a bad bet, and his candidacy should not be dismissed out of hand for lack of doctrinal purity or intemperate candor.

I didn’t know that Obama have a twin brother…, they don’t look alike but sure think a like.., speaking in humanitarians terms and wars off course.., I wonder.., wasn’t he a member of the democratic party before.., claiming now that he is Libertarian… In the other hand it wouldn’t surprise me if Mickey Mouse character or for that Toy Story 3 characters would show up and wanting to run for the white house.., up to date all kind of characters been there.., so why not him.

The view from my small part of Oceania is that Ron Paul would certainly have his work cut out in the unlikely event that he got elected. The inescapable fact is that the US represents 5% of the world's population, but consumes 25% of the world's resources. The US military intervenes anywhere and everywhere across the globe in order to maintain this cruel disparity, and much of the world is aware of this elementary principle of hegemony. You can put a 'humanitarian' or even a 'libertarian' dress on a pig, but it's still a pig. Ron Paul would inevitably buckle just the same as Obama has, because the problem is systemic, not idealogical.
World commentary circa 2001 showed the widespread alarm which the ascendancy of GW Bush in the US had generated, and a common refrain at the time was that this new administration was capable of 'setting the Middle East on fire'. It is therefore difficult to reconcile the history of Bush's and now Obama's wanton recklessness with Justin's assertion that “the prospect of the Israelis dragging us into a regional conflagration is increasingly likely.” Today as we watch Saudi Arabia and Israel begin squaring up to Iran and Iraq in earnest, it would seem that Justin's warning is at least eight years too late.
We should perhaps also recall that the Brookings Institute released its results of extensive polling of Arab public opinion last year, which showed that the major threat in the region is seen by 80 percent of those surveyed to be Israel, and coming in second with 77 percent is the United States. Iran is viewed as a threat by 10 percent. On the subject of nuclear weapons, 57 percent consider the region would actually be made safer if Iran had them.
As to why any US politician would reject defending Taiwan against the People’s Republic of China on the grounds that it would cause a world war, might it be that the China National Petroleum Company's substantial presence in US occupied Iraq provides part of the answer? China is obviously a staunch ally of the US, in much the same way that Saudi Arabia is a staunch ally of Israel. It's just that it isn't polite to admit to these realities in public; they being considered unsuitable for domestic consumption, rather we continue with the bread and circuses.

It drives me nuts that the beltway libertarians constantly try to belittle Ron Paul. Do they not think for one minute what he has done for their ideas, let alone if he got elected. Oh no, they are to high and mighty to vote for someone is against abortion. I guess a man who has delivered around 4000 babies might have a better view than most of these inner city ivory tower critics who don't have the background Paul does. They would rather Obama be President because they choose not to put their support behind someone who would dramatically help their ideas be brought to the forefront.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you brought up jealousy. When you listen to them, all they say is racist. It is like they are channeling Keith Olbermann logical thinking to win an argument. If you disagree with this comment you are a racist, homophobe!

"It is absurd to believe that the US would not be invariably drawn into a war against Iran initiated by Israel" — No, not absurd. Firstly, it might be "initiated" by Iran. Secondly, America didn't have to send soldiers to fight in 1967, 1973, and so on. Israel might be able to wage a war against Iran without America doing any fighting, especially considering that Iran's ally Syria is falling apart, their nuclear program is a shambles thanks to Stuxnet, Iranians are itching to topple the mullahs, and the Saudis might soon be keeping the Iranian military very busy.

"Johnson disdains the idea of defending Taiwan against the People’s Republic of China on the grounds that it would cause a world war – and yet our alliance with Israel is judged by a different standard. Why is that? It’s positively baffling."

Justin says, "first you create a movement big enough and active enough to actually do something, and then the media (which is biased against you anyway) is forced to sit up and take notice."

Cool, and let's apply this to the antiwar movement. Do you really think, Justin, that you can build an antiwar movement around Ron Paul? The best sign yet of the growth of a new antiwar movement have been the workers demonstrations and actions in Wisconsin, which often encompassed explicit and always implicit, opposition to the current wars.

Yes, Ron Paul is against the various wars we are in. That's cool. But meanwhile, he's a loyal member of the same political party as George Bush; sitting in the Congress with mass murderer and hobnobbing with them.

He's against a woman's right to choose; he opposes, as far as I know, public employee unions. He opposes univeersal health care. He also opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

If it came down between Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, I'd vote for Ron Paul. But Gary Johnson is not a cheap knockoff. When he was just leaving office as Governor, I heard him speak at a Libertarian National Convention. That was a while ago, so he is not a recent convert. Plus his fiscally conservative actions in office were decades before any other Governor woke up. His talk at the convention was amazing. He discussed the history of tiered governmental systems and important reasons behind them being more local than centralized. This was not a shallow panhandling discussion. This was an deep explanation of the philosophical underpinnings of his beliefs. I would be very happy with Gary Johnson as President. And having two such men speaking at a public debate would be better than one lone voice being ridiculed by the moderators.

Not much is publicly known about Johnson. He did balance the budget in New Mexico for 8 years, and vetoed 700 plus bills from NM congress. He should be observed for what he has done, and
his intentions. He is one of the very very few candidates with real government/exectuve experience.
I am considering him.

As a non-profit Cato cannot technically endorse candidates, but Ed Crane and Boaz left little doubt in my mind that their favorite in 2008 was Fred Thompson: a libertarian leaning think tank indeed! I promptly withdrew my financial support from Cato and diverted it to Lew Rockwell and Antiwar.com.

Gary Johnson is right on many issues though it is correct to question his waffling on foreign policy. His intellect appears to be a mile wide and an inch deep. I have often watched hi on TV interviews and found him slow on the take, easily knocked off balance, in short, a dull knife. He is clearly not in Ron Paul's class, or Rand Paul for that matter.

I actually have, quite literally, no idea what the goal of this article is.

‘If there’s a clear genocide somewhere, don’t we really want to positively impact that kind of a situation?’ he says. ‘Isn’t that what we’re all about? Isn’t that what we’ve always been about? But just this notion of nation building—I think the current policy is making us more enemies than more friends.'

What kind of person wouldn't "want to positively impact a clear genocide." Are you that kind of person? If you are, I'm sorry. But for the more human of us, a "positive impact" is a reasonable, if not good, or even noble, goal. And one that is definitely worth pursuing as long as the conditions of legality (constitutional, congressional approval, etc), consistency (defining genocide, and foreign policy in general) , humanity (for the people, not special interests), and fiscal responsibility (we can afford it) are met. Those, probably among others, but that's all I could think of right off the bat.

I'll be honest, I didn't finish reading the article. It sounded to me like you were trying to use a single quote to paint a picture of Gary Johnson dressed in an Obama costume trying to be Ron Paul. Please. I like Ron Paul. One of the biggest problems people have with him are the people he did/does associate with. Don't be one of those problems.

Now, most people would tell you to look into Johnson more. But frankly, I'm glad you would judge him on one ambiguous quote about one aspect of his platform. Seriously, politics aside, look at the challenges this guy has overcome. The more people who dismiss and underestimate him, the better.

Why did Ron Paul send out those racist newsletters? It doesn't matter who 'wrote' them. They were his and mailed out by his office.
I guess Paul is indeed the most ideologically pure libertarian with his steadfast devotion to christian confederate white supremacy, opposition to women controlling their own body, and opposition to homosexual rights.
Gary Johnson seems a bit more humane and civilized in many respects.

Of course antiwar.com as a non-profit cannot technically endorse candidates either but it just so happened that Raimondo's talking tour was during the campaign season of the 2010 midterms when he praised the tea partiers. How are those tea partiers doing holding up libertarian values of non-intervention?

You should have read more fully. Justin listed a handful of problematic issues, not simply the one.

Have you thought through just what "positively impact a clear genocide" really means?

It means military action in a foreign country, in simpler times known as invasion. The problem is quite glaring, first, militaries kill people and destroy property-that is their full and stated purpose. That power can be used to make peace, but always in the sense that the Colt "peacemaker" made it. Not exactly lollipops and teddy bears.

Second the intervening force will never truly understand the nature of the conflict, yet will implicitly if not explicitly choose sides-when in fact, oftentimes there is no lesser evil. Case in point, Hitler and Stalin-choose the bad guy. FDR did, and did it stop a genocide? No, in fact it permitted a new one in Eastern Europe after the war.

And of course, to think that governments conduct foreign policy with anything other than lip-service to "humanitarianism" is naive to the point of being dangerous.

Oh, and by the way, as Justin mentioned, the man wants to raise your taxes in the teeth of a depression.

No, I haven't thought through what a "positive impact on a clear genocide" really means. A positive impact is entirely subjective. I have thought about what it means to me, or what it could mean to Ron Paul, or democrats, or republicans.

It could mean putting pressure on neighboring countries to help their own neighbors. It could mean putting pressure on other world powers to use their military. It could mean deciding that as much as we'd like to help, all we can afford is humanitarian aid. It could mean helping to overthrow a previously supported dictator using money we don't have.

In order to determine the subjective meaning of another person, however, you have to know more than what you subjectively determine from a single quote. I am aware of Johnson's political philosophy, and I have a good idea how it might apply in this case.

Did the cosmo skip over my post prediicting your exact response? Go look if you did. Or maybe your actually trying to blame Ron Paul as a racist because he wants to let out all the non-violent drug offenders from jail. Wow, he is a racist, letting thousands of people out of that are mostly black. Wait, I see your a clever closet racist unlike David Duke who just let it all out. You can to, I will keep the faith. Isn't labeling people without facts fun?

Johnson certainly isn't trying to "garner support" among libertarians. He's trying to garner the support of progressives (like Glenn Greenwald, who recently admitted to being optimistic about a possible Johnson/Feingold ticket) and other more mainstream Dems and Repubs who are frustrated with the ongoing wars, mounting debt, and erosion of civil liberties. Unlike Ron Paul, Johnson seeks to be a "serious" candidate. Having the support of libertarians alone obviously does not make one a serious candidate. Besides, if it came down to Johnson, Obama, and whatever flotsam the GOP puts out there I'm confident most libertarians would enthusiastically back Johnson regardless. Like it or not, libertarians are going to have to get used to "libertarian" politicians like Rand Paul and Gary Johnson. They're the best hope we have right now of having any influence in the federal government.

I simply stated the fact that Ron Paul DID send out racist newsletters. Of course this response is predictable.This takes no insight so there is no reason for your self congratulations.
It needs to brought up since Paul has never apologized or owned up to sending out these racist newsletters. Instead he has pretended that someone else sent them out – as if they did not come from his office which they did.
Ever notice that libertarianism became popular after it was no longer acceptable to be an outright racist in American politics? In the early 60's racist crackers openly spoke about supporting white supremacist segregation then after society rejected these racists they became 'libertarians' who support the 'liberty' of property owners to discriminate. Libertarianism is stained with racism and these criticisms are valid and predictable. Look at Lew Rockwell's site. Its filled with overt affection for the christian white supremacist confederacy.
How exactly does bringing up these historic facts make me a 'closet racist'?

Because we already know what kind of support (i.e., not much) Ron Paul would garner in a national election. That isn't to say Johnson will fare any better, but he obviously would need to to have any chance of winning the GOP nomination or running as an influential independent or 3rd-party candidate. Again, I'm not slagging Ron Paul. I'm simply stating what I think is obvious, i.e., a libertarian politician is going to have to make some ideological compromises (particularly on domestic issues) to have any chance of being viable as a national candidate. Ron Paul is also already a brand and it's one only a very small percentage of Americans are willing to buy. At this point, Johnson is largely unknown and thus has the ability to shape his image (to appeal to a larger number of Americans) in a way Ron Paul can't.

NAACP said Ron Paul is not a racist. http://southernavenger.ccpblogs.com/2008/01/14/na…
Now if they say he is not racist, hell they say almost everyone on the right is racist. You need to read about the whole facts before you label someone a racist. When people do that, I call it the last bastion of a person who has lost the discussion intellectually. If you need me to, I can walk you through every bit of those newsletter. Case and point, the way the writing is has been concluded that it doesn't match Ron Paul's style of writing.
You said that "Ron Paul has never apoligized or owned up to sending out those racist letters", well he never personally sent them out. He did own up to the fact that he was ultimately responsible because his name was on them and he should of had more editorial control over them. Why won't you address my statement on you being a racist. Ron Paul wants to free non violent black men from jail and the NAACP says he is not racist. I think you are the racist with a hidden agenda. Prove me wrong.

The Republican party would never vote for someone who is for abortion. That is the one thing they will not tolerate. Sorry, he has less support, a lot less name recognition, less intellect on how the economy works (look at Ron Paul's predicitons), I would vote for Johnson over the other Republicans beside Ron Paul though.

I never said he's being "backed" by the Kochs, only that he's hoping he will be. And there is nothing "vague" about what I'm saying: it's clear to me that the Johnson campaign is all about splitting the libertarian vote, and making Ron less effective.

Rudy G is pro-abortion and was certainly considered a viable GOP candidate at one time. Likewise, McCain was never trusted by the pro-life crowd (even though he talked the talk) and he was the GOP nominee. Besides, I don't see Johnson as a GOP candidate. I see him as more of an independent/3rd-party type who would try to appeal to progressives, libertarians, and those frustrated with politics as usual. I'm not disputing that Ron Paul is a more consistent and principled libertarian than Johnson. I think I'm just pointing out the obvious that a libertarian politician is going to have to make ideological compromises to get elected to the Senate or the White House. I'm really kinda mystified that some of you seem to think I'm a heretic or wrong to think so. An insistence on devotion to libertarian dogma when it's well-established that the overwhelming majority of Americans don't agree with some of that dogma is simply a recipe for continued marginalization.

I just wanted to know why you thought that Ron Paul was not a viable as Johnson. I have never heard that before except from the cosmo's because they love abortion and that is their deciding factor apparently. From all the evidence I have, Johnson doesn't stand a chance going against Paul. I appreciate you can actually debate without being like the guy above. I guess I just thought it was really weird for someone to say Johnson was a more "serious" candidate than Paul. Nice chat.

Um, last time I checked we have troops in two countries that neighbor Iran. You don't think they would want to go after Israel's biggest financial and political backer? And you're second paragraph is rather baffling. You obviously underestimate how long and how damaging a war between the US and Iran would be. It would bring down the entire world's economy just like that.

Fair enough. But I still don't understand the thinking that Paul is a more viable candidate than Johnson. Among hard-core libertarians, yeah, absolutely. But, nobody is going to win (or even be a factor in) a national election by winning the libertarian vote alone. Ron Paul is a known commodity and his appeal to non-libertarians is minimal. I never meant to say I prefer Johnson over Paul. I'm just saying that for a libertarian to be a viable national candidate he'll have to find a way to appeal to more people than Ron Paul does.

I do not think the political elites in the United States would ever allow Ron Paul to become president. If, by some miracle, he did become president they would probably have him killed, just like they did with JFK.

Inevitable that the forces of Zionism would get there slithering tentacles into any movement that threatened their existing power. I think there is one problem with Rn Paul and his movement coming to power in the US. If he did win and bring the US back from the brink, the establishment would be able to escape censure for dragging the US down. In particular Zion is a master of deception and manipulation and would merely remain dormant until they have managed to maneuver conditions for themselves to re-emerge at some point in the future, when the American people have again been mind-numbed, thus beginning the cycle all over again. The sad truth may be that the US can only get out of this destructive path my seeing it to its catastrophic conclusion, when the results of the architects machinations can then be laid bare for all to see.

The name of this site is Antiwar.com. The cause that draws us together is opposition to war and empire. If Gary Johnson does not agree with this, then he is not my candidate, no matter what party he claims to belong to. The term "humanitarian war" is the ultimate oxymoron.

There is plenty of room to debate the content of libertarian ideas. There is debate over abortion, immigration, and the debate between anarcho-capitalist and minianarchist. Some of the content of libertarian ideas,however, should be beyond debate. Wars of aggression and wars of aggression waged under the pretext of humanitarian intervention must be opposed by all libertarians Aggressive war attacks the core values of the libertarian idea, the nonaggression principle and the property right a individual has in his own life. It is right and proper that any person who supports aggressive war not matter how it is dressed up, shoud be dismissed as unworthy of support.

Rudy Guilianni was never a viable Republican candidate. He was a puff, dream candidate by the countryclub and neocon wings of the Republican party. Rudy was their most wanted candidate because what he believed about war and abortion is what they most love. He got less votes than Ron Paul even with all the money and name recognition he had. The elites of both parties control who will get the nomination. For 100 years at least, the big New York banks have controlled most Presidential nominations. tThey certainlly controll Obama and Biden and Hillary Clinton as well as Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Trump etc.

Nice rant. But the funny thing is that you are lying – I never called Ron Paul a racist. He's probably not today. I said (sarcastically) 'he has a devotion to christian confederate white supremacy' – like most libertarians seem to have. Again click on LewRockwell.com for daily examples.
But obviously he was attempting to appeal to racist citizens with his newsletters. This "lack of editorial control" is historical revisionist BS. He knew what was in HIS newsletters sent out by HIS office. These were not accidents.
And yes – historically racism is an attribute of the right – especially in the US. For example did you notice the recent poll in which 46% of Mississippi Republicans support outlawing interracial marriage? The 'liberty' talk from the right is all BS. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/07/shock-poll-…
I have no idea why you are calling me a racist so what is there to respond to? I have not sent out racist newsletters. I support Paul's position on non violent prisoners and many other of his positions. I just don't think he's perfect like his cultists do.

I think what William meant by "intemperate candor" was "indiscretion," moreso than just flat out "honesty." Libertarian politicians who are not out to lecture the masses, but to actually win, so as to make actual policy, such as Gary Johnson and Rand Paul, must exercise discretion in which parts of their views they jabber about, and in how they present those views. Ron Paul's intemperate candor is great for educating people with cold, hard, undiluted truth, but not getting elected by the public into key policy-making offices. Gary Johnson and Rand Paul's temperate candor is not as great for educating people, but it is great for getting them into positions where they can actually repeal and abolish and change those onerous laws.

If you don't know the difference between abortion and murder, I suggest that you go back to the Middle Ages.

Actually, Ron Paul is kind of cute on the issue. He believes in a states rights approach which means that if you live in a state that permits abortion, or if you have the money to travel to one, and you have the dough to pay for it, and you can fight your way past the ight-wing crazies,, you can murder a baby. This is a de facto banning of abortion for all for the very rich.

"Why did Ron Paul send out those racist newsletters? It doesn't matter who 'wrote' them. They were his and mailed out by his office.
I guess Paul is indeed the most ideologically pure libertarian with his steadfast devotion to christian confederate white supremacy, opposition to women controlling their own body, and opposition to homosexual rights. "
See where you said he has a steadfast devotion to christian confederate white supremacy in your first post. Your whole damn comment was also alluding he was one. Too bad the NAACP says he is not. Just admit you were wrong about the racist allegations and quit acting like some freerepublic puppet. I gave facts, you gave nothing. I can now see that your racism is showing through. Why else would you be worked up so much about him. I quoted where you said he was a racist, and proved you wrong that he isn't. Now, you can be a man, or be an Olbermann.

Never has run anything? He was in the Navy, a doctor, and a 10 term congressman now the head of the financial committee. He called this crash before it happened. I think that proves my point that he is a lot more experienced.

It sounds like you're saying that people have to be tricked into voting for libertarian candidates. I view this as a fruitless endeavor. We will never have a free society until the day comes when people get elected because of their libertarian views, rather than in spite of them. And once that day comes, the outcomes of elections will be largely irrelevant anyway, since by then, government will already be far smaller than is currently the case. In other words, any real change will come from the bottom up, not from the top down.

You seem to ignore the idea that opinions can be changed. At one time, the overwhelming majority of Americans disagreed with the "dogmatic" ideas held by the abolitionists, or the supporters of female suffrage, etc. Nevertheless, these groups persisted in their "dogmatic" approach, and eventually, their ideas came to be widely accepted. There is no reason why the same thing can't happen for libertarians, provided, of course, that they resist the temptation to compromise with the tyrants.

"In the early 60's racist crackers … So in GW's twisted mind the word 'niggers' is verboten, the absolute worst thing in the world, but he can spew the equivalent epithet 'crackers' and yet still claim to be some sort of moral censor? Please do not bar S "fetus huggers" G from making comments here – he is a typical example of the left wing extremist who wants to rule us all.
Admit it, SG – you're not really against wars of aggression on principle. You are just cheesed that the men and materiel are being used against people overseas, rather than against those you deem your political enemies – you know, fetus huggers, gun nuts, Bible lovers, private property rights advocates.

I heard Johnson speak at the 912 rally in DC and I took an immediate liking to him. BUT, when he said that we need to stop the war on drugs and legalize marijuana he was literally booed. Tea partiers, although I get hteir agenda, are NOT libertarians and I don't think either Ron or Gary have a snowballs chance in hell of getting the Republican nomination, sad to say.

Nope, not ignoring that idea at all. I'm referring to the fact that right now (and this won't change between now and 2012) the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in preserving things like Social Security and Medicare. Many libertarians, on the other hand, spend a lot of time railing against all entitlements. Right or wrong, that puts those libertarians at odds with many of the people they'd need to vote for them to put them in office. Moreover, candidates say a lot of things just because they know it's what potential voters want to hear. Candidate Rand Paul sounded a lot more like a neocon on foreign policy than Senator Rand Paul. Maybe the same is going on with Johnson. He made these remarks to the "Weekly Standard," after all. And while I agree completely that wars of aggression should always and everywhere be rejected that is, unfortunately, not a view shared by most voters.

Regardless, I'm not really defending Johnson. I just think libertarians need to be careful about immediately jumping on potential allies just because they express something that doesn't fit the libertarian ideal.

And how much of an impact has Senator Rand Paul had on the way that foreign policy is actually being conducted? About the same as his unabashedly radical father, i.e. little to none. As I said in a post earlier in this thread, you have to change the minds of the public before you can change the system, and you can't change the minds of the public if you're too busy pandering to the mistaken views that they currently embrace.

Fact: Ron Paul sent out very racist newsletters
Libertarian response: He had no idea someone was writing these and sending them out from HIS office. Just a lack of 'editorial control'. And the real racist is the critic who points out these racist newsletters!

Fact: Libertarians have an overt affection for the christian white supremacist confederacy.
Libertarian response: You are a racist. You give no facts while I do.

Too f'ing funny (and pathetic). Why can't they just admit they (like the Dems and Republicans) have a very soiled history in regards to race? The Dems changed in the late 60's at least – which sent the racist crackers flocking to the GOP and libertarian ideology. All of a sudden racists weren't advocating white supremacist segregation in their beloved Jim Crow South – they were arguing for the 'liberty' to discriminate.

Just curious. Could you point out the distinctions between abortion and murder? My antediluvian mind would really like to know. You should be able to do it pretty efficiently and quickly as you made it apparent that it is so obvious to most 21st century minds.

Speculate is the key word there. They have no proof. I believe in this country a man is innocent until proven guilty. Reason's board member is one of the Koch brother BTW. Koch's also backed Conway over Rand even though they claim to be libertarian. Weird isn't it.
About the FreeRepublic who said Ron Paul was a racist, it looks like their is more proof that they are the racist. http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Conserv…

I'll tell you where Gary Johnson sees an bright opportunity as a libertarian nominee for president. It's laughably simple. It's in our beloved Ron Paul's downright WOEFUL use of rhetoric from the dais as Dr. Ron refuses to write an elegant, powerful speech and *stick to it*, which leaves his friendly listeners curling their toes as he meanders from one incomplete sentence to another in search of a "hook". This is a very very serious problem when fishing for loose support in a democratic system, let alone a multi-ethnic democratic system wherein "good" rhetoric/speechifying is a casual signifier of innate authority.

(And of course this isn't fair, but there it is for all to see: GWBush bad? Gore the pedant was much much worse.)

I see Justin's points as him going "on the record" regarding signs and omens. Perfectly useful and it makes a good column. I guess I'm a softie though, as I see Gary Johnson basically doing what he needs to do to get invited within our ridiculously closed political Kone of Konversation— mainly The Debates.
As I recall, Rand Paul was seen being escorted around the beltway by American Likudnik, Bill Kristol as well as being felt up by the VatiCons at National Review. Apparently, Rand played them for suckers—it appears…so far. He has definitely muddled the neocon narrative over the GOP.

PS Frankly, I will vote RP if he lasts until the Oklahoma primaries.
Q: when was the last time RP did not quit before the OK primaries?
A: 1988.

critic of Paul: well the fact is that he did send out those very racist newsletters. You can pretend that he had no idea this was happening but this makes no sense. They were his. They were mailed by his office. These are the facts.
Paul cultist: Dear Ron had no "editorial control" of his newsletters being sent out from his office. He had no idea these racist views were being sent from his office. And you are racist for bringing this up.

critic of libertarianism: libertarians have a gratuitous overt affection for the christian white supremacist confederacy.
libertarian: you are a racist.

More bigotspeak from Grady "racist crackers" Wilson.
"libertarians have a gratuitous overt affection for the christian white supremacist confederacy.
Translation: Since I cannot win an argument with a libertarian regarding the principle of non-aggression and how said principle applies to Lincoln's War of Aggression, i will use the 'racist' canard to try to stop all rational discussion. On Easter weekend I enjoy smearing Christians and whites.
To be called a 'racist' by this left wing extremist is a badge of honor.

But Libertarians do have a gratuitous overt affection for the christian white supremacist confederacy don't they? "Racist crackers" is an appropriate term isn't it?
Do you support Robert E. Lee or not?

"But Libertarians do have a gratuitous overt affection for the christian white supremacist confederacy don't they? "Racist crackers" is an appropriate term isn't it?
Do you support Robert E. Lee or not?"
1. Some libertarians such as myself believe all states are evil, but that the Confederacy had, as did the slave-holding original 13 colonies, the right of secession. All states and peoples have said right, despite what Lincoln and Eric Foner say.
2. To constantly call other people the trotskyite term, 'racist', and then to refer to those that disagree with your extreme leftism as "racist crackers" says far more about you than it does about your rhetorical adversaries.
3. Support or non-support of Lee is a red herring insofar as trying to discuss racial matters(argument can be made that Lee was a far better person than his slave-holding counterparts in Lincoln's high command, including the US Grant, a former slave overseer.) I support secession, whether it be New England, Chechnya, Tibet, Libya, or anywhere else. The Confederacy had the same right to secede that the colonies did. While statist, the Confederacy was less so than its opponents. Do you know that the South did not invade the North to force the northern states to reinstitute slavery, or to take control of the Union?
You have severe anger management problems, as well as an inability to discuss issues beyond Bolshie (thank you, Gary Trudeau) cliches, ad hominems and sloganeering. Please seek God's Guidance, even if you must see one of those 'horrible white Chistian' ministers. Remember that even if you reject God, He never rejects you.

As always, an informative and thoughtful analysis. Justin is my all-time favorite rightist.

That said, I'm not sure that even Ron Paul is as libertarian as Mr. Raimondo believes him to be. While there was mention of Paul's "personal opposition to abortion," I am not confident that this "personal" opposition would not translate into executive veto, Supreme Court nomination, signing statements, etc. Likewise, I know that Mr. Paul is a conservative Christian and it is hard to think this would have no role in his place as the executive of our nation.

Still, I will say this: given a choice between Paul and Obama, e.g., I would not hesitate for a second in voting for Paul. I *hope* Paul really would restore our civil liberties and freedoms–and I *know* that Obama would, if reelected, continue to whittle them down.

No, he isn't baffling at all. We go to war with China, and they cut off 40% of our imports, crippling our economy, Taiwan gets the brunt of it, chopping another 10% off, and we wind up with a Navy at the long end of a huge ocean dealing with the majority of the fight. Plus it will make Tokyo and Seoul and Manilla very unhappy, and Canberra and Delhi won't like it much either.

Not to mention the debt factor…

Sometimes war is about more than military matchups. Economics matter, too.

Libertarianism is built on racism. It only got popular as a backlash to the Civil Rights Era. They love the white supremacist confederacy. They support the 'right' to discriminate. Most every libertarian is a white male. Libertarians hate equality. Look at Justin Raimondo for chrissake, He argues AGAINST gay rights and equality and he's gay! Libertarians are self loathing white supremacists too afraid to say it. They are filled with confederate shame knowing that they know they are on the wrong side of history and morality so they lash out at their critics with illogical, self righteous, adolescent rants like yours and 'truthstings' above. They pretend that since Lincoln was evil that the immoral south was virtuous.
Those are the facts.

So I guess, re Obama and Paul, if you have a choice between strychnine and arsenic, you'll perceive that you have a choice. Paul plays the same game as Obama. he's the fig leaf that covers the most virulent aspects of capitalism, until they get into office.

Justin's libertarianism is the same kind of fig leaf for conservatism as a whole.

It's both–that is, you will find a range of views. Some of the contributors and linked articles are by well-known persons on the political left; some are on the right. What they all, unfailingly, have in common is opposition to the American empire–our endless war(s).

A libertarian can be against abortion if that person views a fetus as a baby instead of a vestigial organ. See, the main theme behind libertarians is that you can do almost whatever you want as long as you don't harm another human being. If you view an unborn child as a human being, then that would be murder.
How about the father has no right to chose. The fetus in that women is half his. He will have to pay child support. Why would the man not have a right to decide. Can't answer that one can you. So you are for stripping a mans rights away from him. Don't even throw rape in here. It is a very small percentage, and a lot of pro-life would make a compromise to stop the vast majority of abortions. Maybe women shouldn't have sex (or unprotected) if they don't want a baby. By your logic a man should be able to tell the women she should have an abortion because he is going to be strapped with the consequences of that child being born.

"Please seek God's Guidance, even if you must see one of those 'horrible white Chistian' ministers. Remember that even if you reject God, He never rejects you. " – SoS

I reject your fictitious, morally repulsive god and the ignorance his delusional followers perpetuate
SoS is just another example of Libertarians being not for individual liberty but for far right christian conservatism.

"We only need to occupy the oil regions (and the path to the sea), and completely expel all the natives from the conquered portions to prevent insurgency. If the former owners of the oil get too uppity, just nuke them and continue pumping the oil." Andrewp111

"I reject your fictitious, morally repulsive god and the ignorance his delusional followers perpetuate."
Nothing like a polite, thoughtful reply to my concern about your well-being.
"SoS is just another example of Libertarians being not for individual liberty but for far right christian conservatism."
How is giving you religious advice not on the level of individual liberty? I made the suggestion to you and have no power or desire to force you or anyone else to comply. I am not the State.
Do states and smaller groupings, no matter what the nature of their governance, have the right of secession, G"racist crackers"W? Did the original 13 colonies, the Confederacy, the former Soviet states?

Here we have again another example of the libertarian as a far right christian zealot rather than a lover of liberty."

No, Grady"racist crackers"Wilson, what we have here is your example of someone who cannot differentiate between libertarianism and its prime directive, the non-aggression principle, and libertinism coupled (pun intentional) with moral irresponsibility and infanticide.

Pretty funny coming from Galbraith, who bargained hard for his multi-million frn book contracts, down to the last dime. Typical socialist hypocrite.
Conservatives and liberals are the same – both are inveterate busybodies who after all of the theatrics will work hand-in-glove to further their agendas and to defeat any challenges to the current warfare/welfare system.

WOW, what a barbaric mindset you have! In your twisted reality the ONLY choice is violence. You're sick.

"Conservatives support the violence of the wealthy minority."

And how is this different from people like YOU who want to give a small minority (govt.) all the wealth to divvy up? Isn't YOUR ideal world one in which a " violent wealthy minority" (those who run govt.) seizes the wealth and distributes it how they want?

"Libertarianism is built on racism." No, libertarianism is built on the non-aggression principle.
"It only got popular as a backlash to the Civil Rights Era." No, libertarianism became popular as Leviathan accrued more and more power to itself.
"They love the white supremacist confederacy". No, some libertarians believe that the Northern states, as well as the Southern ones, had and have the right of secession, of freedom of association in smaller units as the people see fit.
" They support the 'right' to discriminate".Yes, because the right to discriminate is coupled to the right of private property and freedom. Did not your father, G"racist crackers" Wilson, discriminate against all the rest of the women in the world when he chose to marry your mother? Did he not discriminate against many other children in deciding to raise you? Discrimination is freedom, whether it meets state standards or not.
" Most every libertarian is a white male." Libertarians welcome all. By your standards, black churches must be black supremacist.
"Libertarians hate equality." Some libertarians hate state enforced equality, since it is a zero sum game that uses taxpayer money to favor one group over another. It is also groupthink politics that diminishes the individual.
" Look at Justin Raimondo for chrissake, He argues AGAINST gay rights and equality and he's gay! "So any homosexual must think the way you do or else he is deranged? Who's the bigot, "racist crackers"? JR argues against group rights since only individuals can have rights. JR argues for individual rights
"Libertarians are self loathing white supremacists too afraid to say it." What is your obsession with racism? Would you please have an adult remove racism from your closet or from beneath your bed?
"They are filled with confederate shame knowing that they know they are on the wrong side of history and morality so they lash out at their critics with illogical, self righteous, adolescent rants like yours and 'truthstings' above. They pretend that since Lincoln was evil that the immoral south was virtuous." Didn't know that truth was a popular contest. The Westphalian state system is collapsing and it is the critical libertarians who are the blind state-worshippers? Some libertarians believe that the South had the right to secede, not that it or any state is virtuous, now or ever.

"Those are the facts." If your statements were facts, why do you whistle past the graveyard?

As far as I can tell, the positions of Gary Johnson and Ron Paul on abortion are the same – both are Constitutional strict constructionists who would overturn Roe v. Wade and return to the states the power to legislate their own policies on abortion. Johnson even signed legislative restrictions on abortion adopted by the New Mexico legislature when he was governor. Why should anyone who is pro-life have any trouble supporting such a candidate for President. Indeed, a return to the status quo ante on Roe v. Wade is so obvious an answer to conundrum that has divided the nation for forty years that I believe Republicans that champion the Human Life Amendment, as well as Democrats who proclaim inviolate a "woman's right to choose" are co-conspirators in a campaign to keep American voters mired in this ideological division and distracted from the real threat to human life, born and unborn, that governs this country, the War Party's "bipartisan" commitment perpetual spending on war and armaments around the world. If Gary Johnson declares in principle his willingness to "protect militarily Israel's right to exist", can you think of a potential presidential candidate who is not Ron Paul who is less likely to put that principle into action? Johnson has already expressed unequivocally his commitment to withdrawing U.S. troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan (and without doubt would end the bombing of Pakistan and Libya as well), for the stated reason that there is nothing in either country that poses "a current threat to the United States". That is far more of an antiwar pledge than even Obama made during the 2008 primary season. Yes, the governor should be tested further before winning the endorsement of those whose primary commitment is pro-life and/or antiwar, but isn't it too early to count him out?

Raimondo scores big with points like "It is all too clear to me what the Johnson campaign represents: the attempt by the so-called "cosmopolitan" (cosmotarian?) wing of our movement to create "the next Ron Paul" – and dump all that antiwar, anti-Federal Reserve "kooky" stuff, which the Beltway libertarian organizations funded by the so-called"Kochtopus" look down their noses at."

It's unfortunate that AWC editorially runs the same "respectible Libertarian" game when it repeatedly demeans and dumps on "all that 9-11 truth, false flag 'kooky' stuff," that has even more clearly served to provide a tripwire to drive US interventionism.

Yes, we should be like Sparta and kill babies that are weak. Even after they are born. Even though we have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, babies don't. I'm sure somewhere in the Constitution it says that. FACEDESK

Using a lobbyist driven federal government to affect such "positive impacts" almost always has dire results.

It's better to let people be free to contribute to organizations or voices that may be much more effective in dissuading such turmoil. Individuals may even help fund armies that they believe are fighting for good in the region.

That also avoids the immorality of forcing others to pay for what they see as a murderous invasion that is being conducted on behalf of corrupt vested interests. Basically, the status quo.

A fetus is not a person, even if it can be medically defined as a "human life." In any case, you wshould consult the writings of Murray Rothbard to see why this argument is irrelevant. A person may expel a trespasser from his house with all necessary force. Why can't a woman remove a trespasser from her insides? If you give "rights" to the fetus, you take them from the mother, of which the fetus is a physical part. It therefore should never be rendered the status of a person.

A real test of the sincerity and clarity of antiabortionist ideas is this:
If a woman consents to an abortion, and is therefore committing infanticide, should she be punished to the same degree as a woman who stabs her already born child with a knife? If not, why not? Passing this off onto the doctor who did the abortion doesn't cut it. If Don Corleone hires a hitman to kill someone, and the hitman turns states' evidence, Don Corleone can be charged with murder. Answer that.

What about the property principle? If your body isn't "private property," then what is? If someone who you invited into your house is no longer welcome, and won't leave absent the use of force, then aren't you allowed to use force?

Fortunately those workers that demonstrated in WIsconsin are against force and war, aren't they?
That's why they want to get the government's help in continuing the force against employers and continuing to vote for, get this, a party that now has a president every bit the mass murderer and civil rights violator as Dubya.

Those workers don't have the first clue why war is immoral. If they did, they wouldn't so proudly try to use government coersion to get what THEY want.

That's why antiwar.com can build an anti-war movement around Ron Paul, and make a mockery of itself building one around a group of people that is forever hypocritical and selective about government force.

A murder victim isn't gestating inside a killer's body for 9 months, potentially causing sickness, harm, mental distress, incredible pain during delivery and potentially even death in some cases.
A murder victim is, generally speaking, also almost never the result of rape, incest or teenaged stupidity at the expense of the murderer.
Libertarianism is against one individual being enslaved by another. Unwanted pregnancy is a woman physically enslaved to another person for 9 months. People enslaved against their will have the right to defend themselves and rid themselves of their enslavement.

You may say pregnant women had the choice not to get pregnant, but pro-life people generally do not make exceptions for those who got pregnant through ignorance, rape or incest. To them, pro-life is pro-life.

First of all, it's really stupid to judge an article after honestly admitting not having read all of it.

Second, it is also rather stupid and presumptuous to tell someone not to be one of the "wrong people" Ron Paul associates with, when you yourself do not oppose interventionism which Ron Paul explicitly DOES oppose.

Aside from that, which people does Ron Paul associate with that people have a problem with? Lew Rockwell? Murray Rothbard? Walter Block?
Anybody having a problem with guys like these should stop pretending to like Ron Paul's ideas.

I have been shopping for a new libertarian as of late. Despite the clear conspiratorial timing of the Whore Media's torpedo spread, the torpedos are live; i.e. the charges are not easily dismissed. Yes; they timed this to fatally wound the best shot against the NWO. But, perhaps we must take some blame ourselves for putting all our eggs in this basket.
Thank you for making the case for me, for Gary Johnson. Once again the Ron Paulistas have shown their hand.
The conversation with a stoned President Johnson rapping with Bibi about nuking Tehran proves the point. The point being that Israel with nukes and Iran without is demonstrably better for the world, then the reverse.
If Gary Johnson supports American Liberty AND rational foreign policy in a world considerably different from the one in which Washington correctly in warned us against foreign entanglements, then he is my guy.
Washington and their generation and the next several generations thought of the Great Powers as France, Russia, Britain, Austria, Spain. The US protected by two oceans, had nothing to fear from any sort of invasion. See Lincoln's speech in re: to foreign armies taking a drink from the Ohio River.
With the world addicted to Persian Gulf fuel, and the potential for total war fought by ICBMs, and nukes, the Two Ocean defense is still necessary, but no longer sufficient. With nations of unimaginable power stamping over God's Earth, like China, and the full expansion of Russia into Eurasia, and even our own United States having twice sallied forth to defend the Western European nation states from Continental Hegemony, (essentially taking up Britain's historic role), the foreign policy of such a quaint time as Washington's is no longer suitable for national sovereignty.

Mick, we do not take marching orders from polls of semi-literate Arabs. Your OWS-reasoning that 5% of the population consumes 25% of the resources implies that our military is strung out supporting the looting of natural resources from its lawful owners. Not so. It is market value that determines the worth of extraction, and thus justifies the costs used in drilling, mining, planting, etc. Where does the US steal or underpay the global market value for natural resources? If Nigerians for instance (that was your answer, no?) are content with their own government skimming the bulk of the money and shipping it to Swiss accounts; well that is their look out. OR would you have us imposing our values on them?
If our 5% of the population consume 25% of the resources, what percent of the Global Terrestrial Product does the USA produce?
You say the problem is Systemic. Is that to say that capitalism is the problem?

Despite the clear conspiratorial timing of the Whore Media's torpedo spread, the torpedos are live; i.e. the charges are not easily dismissed. Yes; they timed this to fatally wound the best shot against the NWO. But, perhaps we must take some blame ourselves for putting all our eggs in this basket. Ron Paul's newsletters are what they are.
Unfortunate. He merely wrote what many believe anyway, even those who are "scandalized" by his saying black yutes are "fleet-of-foot". Unfortunately he truly seems to believe Iran's Mullahs are closer to America's values than those of Israel. I have been the Ron Paul apologist in my family of liberal Jews. And now I feel as I did after Mel Gibson drunkenly spewed his anti-Jew hate spittle. I had been the apologist for The Passion, not only because I am a Messianic believer, but because as I said nearly all the characters in the New Testament are The Jews; Good and Bad. Got stuck holding that bag of poop. And again, blindsided by Paul's Anti-Israeli fervor. He is not merely a "Pox on all of you crazy Middle Eastern religious fanatics" but selectively a "Pox on the Zionists and American Jews; and God Bless Irania".

I find it so counterproductive that, facing the chocolate or vanilla antichrist choice, you would have the balls to complain about Gary Johnson because he isn't Ron Paul or, I guess, Ghandi. Can you stand up under the scrutiny you put him through? And, is he so terrible, really, especially in light of the alternatives? No, but you go ahead with your armchair academic hubris and knock down the last hope for rescuing our constitution so you can sound intelligent and superior. There is no ideal candidate and Ron Paul did not run to get elected: GET OVER IT. Now, are you going to try to actually help the situation or just keep complaining that Mr. Perfect Libertarian is not available to fulfill all your political wet dreams. These types of non-productive commentaries do nothing but cause harm. Thanks for paving the road toward the 4th Reich by tearing down the only person in the race that wants to preserve the principals of a Democratic Republic.

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com, and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute. He is a contributing editor at The American Conservative, and writes a monthly column for Chronicles. He is the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement [Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993; Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2000], and An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard [Prometheus Books, 2000].